Who held the intellectual and administrative responsibility for these researchers?
The primary authority and responsibility lay with Prof. Dr. Hayrettin Karaman. Since he was only present on certain days of the week, I would handle the day-to-day affairs of the researchers and brief him when he arrived. Decisions made under his leadership would then be communicated to the researchers. Prof. Karaman was the intellectual leader of the researchers during his tenure. Later, I became the head of the Researchers’ Committee, but I would always consult with him before making any significant decisions. I managed the daily tasks, prepared documents, and shared ideas with him. This was a challenging and stressful role because training researchers in a research center was an unfamiliar concept in Türkiye. We, as researchers, felt this stress, as did Prof. Karaman, Prof. Ismail Erünsal, and Prof. Tayyar Altıkulaç in their administrative roles. Until my appointment as ISAM’s director in March 1999, I acted as an academic intermediary between the foundation and the researchers, ensuring their work was completed on time. This was a crucial and demanding role, as balancing the researchers’ varying levels of success and different inclinations was no easy task.

How did you transition from being a researcher at ISAM to becoming its director?
While I was still serving as the head of the Researchers’ Committee, Prof. Azmi Özcan expressed his desire to step down for reasons unknown to me. In early March 1999, without prior consultation, I was verbally informed that I would be taking over the role. I believe this decision was made during a general assembly meeting of the Türkiye Diyanet Foundation, where the foundation’s governing bodies were also being elected. Prof. Tayyar Altıkulaç, who handled high-level informal communication with Ankara at the time, likely facilitated this decision. After the general assembly, the board of trustees accepted Prof. Özcan’s resignation and appointed me as his successor. Thus, on March 12, 1999, I unexpectedly assumed the role of ISAM’s director.

When I took over as director in March 1999, one of the most pressing issues was the new payment system the center had recently implemented. Second was the increasing pressure from the February 28 process, and third was ensuring that researchers continued their academic work regularly. These were the key agendas at the time, but the most critical was the February 28 process and the preparation of the encyclopedia for publication. To illustrate the extent of the pressure from the February 28 process, in the first half of 1999, three inspectors from the Prime Ministry, the General Directorate of Foundations, and the Directorate of Religious Affairs were sent to audit ISAM. Questions like “What’s going on there?” and “Where is all this money going?” were frequently raised. The February 28 process’s pressure on Islamic institutions was palpable, and ISAM was a significant focus during that period.

How did the February 28 process affect ISAM and the encyclopedia work?
By 1999, the February 28 process was ongoing, and its effects were felt at ISAM. One of the most significant impacts was that some universities stopped granting their faculty permission to work at ISAM. Faculty members needed permission from their universities to come to ISAM on certain days and contribute to the encyclopedia. When universities began denying this permission, both the faculty and ISAM’s administration faced difficulties. While negotiations with university rectors continued, we also had to explain the work being done at ISAM, including the encyclopedia and academic projects. This was somewhat successful. Another issue was ensuring that faculty could continue writing entries without coming to the center. Some began taking resources home, but this wasn’t ideal. It led to delays in producing entries, increased costs, and inefficiencies when faculty did come to the center.

What measures did you take to address these issues, Professor?
In 1998, the payment rules were changed, and a per-word fee was introduced. However, when I took over as director, faculty payments were still a significant issue. Additionally, the entries they wrote incurred additional costs for the center. Some faculty produced texts that required minimal editing and could be published quickly, keeping costs low. Others produced texts that went through extensive revisions, costing the center several times more than what the authors were paid. Based on the center’s experience, certain payment categories were established. These categories were determined by the quality of the entries and the amount of work required by the center. 

Did other challenges arise during the encyclopedia’s publication?
Of course. In May 2000, the regulations regarding Hajj and Umrah were changed. The new regulations transferred the authority to organize Hajj and Umrah from the Türkiye Diyanet Foundation to the Directorate of Religious Affairs. This effectively meant that a public institution was generating income outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Accounts and spending it without oversight. Normally, this would be against regulations, but it was implemented under the logic of the February 28 process to reduce the foundation’s income. Ironically, this regulation is still in effect today. The foundation suddenly lost its most significant source of income. How would the encyclopedia work continue under these conditions, and how many volumes would it take to complete? If the foundation’s director had asked how many volumes the encyclopedia would comprise, I wouldn’t have had an answer. No such planning had been done. Under the pressure of the February 28 process, we initiated a new study. We evaluated the volumes published so far and the remaining entries to estimate how many more volumes would be needed. We tasked all academic boards with answering this question. After extensive discussions, we decided that the encyclopedia could be completed in 40 volumes. At that time, we had reached around the 20th volume. This study led to a reclassification of the entries. During my tenure, several volumes were completed. I tracked the progress of the entries using a computer program. Each volume, excluding images, contained between 560,000 and 580,000 words.

I assume the February 28 process indirectly affected the researchers as well?
During those years, the pressures of the circumstances led to a new agenda in the Researchers’ Committee: determining how many researchers the foundation could retain and how others could transition to universities. A committee led by Prof. Hayrettin Karaman worked on this issue. They decided that some researchers would stay at ISAM, while others would periodically move to universities. As some researchers left for universities, questions arose about whether ISAM was abandoning its research projects. No, a revision was made. The main idea, which I supported and later regretted not seeing implemented, was that ISAM would take on the role of project coordination. The remaining researchers would lead projects in their respective fields. Those who moved to universities and other faculty members in our areas of interest would contribute as academic partners. This way, ISAM would continue its projects with external academic support. This had two significant benefits. First, we would continue working with these researchers through projects. Second, we would support many academics in their institutions, enhancing their academic productivity while allowing them to continue their university roles. In other words, we would connect with academics from any university who could produce work of the quality and level suitable for ISAM. This would alleviate the increasing financial burden while ensuring that book and project work continued uninterrupted. Based on this idea, some researchers were retained at ISAM. The key characteristic of those who stayed was their ability to lead such projects. Some of our colleagues took positions at universities in Istanbul, while others went to universities outside the city.